Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!att-ih!pacbell!ptsfa!well!rmac
From: rmac@well.UUCP (Robert J. McIlree)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: A Cynic's Guide, part 1
Message-ID: <5411@well.UUCP>
Date: 10 Mar 88 17:42:31 GMT
References: <5313@utah-cs.UUCP> <302@buckaroo.SW.MCC.COM> <5321@utah-cs.UUCP> <1692@desint.UUCP> <5335@utah-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: rmac@well.UUCP (Robert J. McIlree)
Distribution: na
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 69

In article <5335@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) writes:
>In article <1692@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>
>>As an
>>example, I could (but won't) cite a certain person who, having driven away
>>one company's customers, later went on to a more responsible position with
>>a much larger firm, where he today is happily convincing many people that
>>his employer is completely incompetent, at least with the software he is
>>involved in.
>
>Why not name names?  If you have facts to relate, then your moral duty is
>to publicize them.  Of course, this is in the same category as whistle
>blowing, so I understand if you maybe want to line up another job first!
>Perhaps ACM or IEEE could make themselves useful for a change and set up
>something to support software whistleblowers...
>
>							stan shebs
>							shebs@cs.utah.edu

Uh, hold the phone here Stan. "Whistleblowing" pertains to those who
are committing crimes, like felonies, against their employers, the
government, etc. "Publicizing the facts", as you describe, would
probably result in one or more of the following (even if the
whistleblower had something else lined up):

	1) To trumpet so-and-so as an incompetent software engineer
	   or manager would probably entail the release of the
	   company's proprietary information (i.e. the "facts, as you
	   put it). This leads to a lawsuit by company involved
	   against whistleblower, for revealing trade secrets and
	   violating the standard employment agreement most of us
	   sign when coming aboard.

	2) In trumpeting so-snd-so as incompetent, so-and-so probably
	   has some very nice legal avenues to persue against the
	   "whistleblower" (I'd use a better term here, how about
	   "fink" or stool pidgeon"?). Libel and slander come to
	   mind right away. This scenario can also be closely coupled
	   with scenario #1.

	3) Finally, the "whistlebloer/fink/stoolie" must become
	   public along with the target. Probably would get
	   publicized in the trades (after all, we are trying to
	   root out "problem" people, aren't we?) and prof. mags.
	   I, for one, would never hire the fink because, in the
	   absense of criminal activity as defined by law, he
	   could "blow his whistle" on me, for as small a reason
	   as disagreeing with my management or technical styles.
	   As you may suspect, the witch-hunts that start from
	   that type of approach would concievably leave us
	   all unemployed. Finks cannot be trusted.

As to your reference for ACM or IEEE to become policemen over our
profession, I for one do not pay dues to these organizations so
that the profession may be purged of your view of incompetent
individuals. Actually, our profession weeds out people who don't
belong in it  pretty effectively anyway. People leave,
get fired, get promoted (as in the example), or start new careers.
So, equilibrium of "competent" folks is usally maintained accross the 
board.

Finally, individuals compete with each other, companies do the same.
So if you were a competitor against the guy who screwed up, you'd
gloat. Because you'd get your stuff to market faster with higher
quality while he spins his (and the company's) wheels. See what I
mean?

Bob McIlree
{lll-crg,ihnp4,}!well!rmac